Executive functions (EF) have been the darling of education research and professional development for well over a decade. It’s not hard to see why. Skills like working memory, inhibition, and cognitive flexibility are linked to academic success, career progression, and even life satisfaction. If we could boost them through targeted training, the appeal for teachers, parents, and policymakers would be irresistible.
But here’s the catch: as we wrote in The Psychology of Great Teaching, the evidence for durable, far-reaching effects is far more fragile than the hype suggests (check also these earlier meta-analyses). Yes, you can train EF. Yes, students can improve at the exact tasks they practise. But the leap from “better at this game” to “better at school, work, and life” is where things start to wobble. As always, far transfer is really hard to achieve.
A new synthesis by Dirk Van Damme and Charles Fadel paints a careful, nuanced picture. On the plus side, many studies find short-term gains in specific EF skills—especially working memory and inhibitory control—sometimes with some spillover into reading or maths. On the minus side, long-term effects and “far transfer” (benefits beyond the trained tasks) are inconsistent, often small, and in some cases absent. Methodological problems, small samples, and lack of replication don’t help.
So, is it hopeless? Not at all. The research does point to some conditions under which EF training is more likely to stick. Here’s their overview, adapted and simplified:
| What’s more likely to work | What’s less likely to work |
|---|---|
| Start early in sensitive periods (early childhood, adolescence) | Short, isolated programmes without follow-up |
| Integrate EF into everyday teaching and real tasks | Isolated computer or board games with no context |
| Sustained, repeated practice over time | One-off interventions lasting a few weeks |
| Link EF skills to concrete learning goals (e.g., using working memory in reading comprehension) | Abstract exercises without clear purpose or relevance |
| Provide a rich, structured, emotionally safe environment | Chaotic, distraction-heavy environments |
| Reduce stress and provide emotional support | High-stress, low-support climates |
| Target support for vulnerable groups (ADHD, low SES, learning difficulties) | Generic “one-size-fits-all” approaches |
| Practise in varied contexts and settings | Repetition of the same task in one setting |
Even with these favourable conditions, the authors remain cautious: the road from training to lasting, generalised improvement is far from guaranteed. But it’s not a dead end either. If we see EF not as a magic bullet but as one layer in a broader approach—where good teaching, structured learning environments, and emotional support all play their part—we can create the conditions for students to use their executive skills where it matters most.
In the end, EF training is a bit like physical training. You can work the muscles, but if the rest of the lifestyle—the diet, the rest, the environment—doesn’t support it, gains will fade. And if you look closely at the list of things that do seem to help, you might notice something: many of them are just hallmarks of great teaching.
[…] followed 139 children aged roughly between 2.5 and 6.5 years. The researchers looked at their executive functions: skills such as directing attention, remembering rules, suppressing impulses and dealing flexibly […]
[…] werd gezocht naar trainingen om werkgeheugen, inhibitie of flexibiliteit apart te versterken. Met gemengde resultaten (en dat is een understatement). Kleine effecten, weinig transfer. Tot je kijkt naar studies waar die functies ontwikkeld worden […]
[…] searched for ways to train working memory, inhibition, or cognitive flexibility in isolation. The results were mixed, at best. Small effects, limited transfer. Until you look at studies that develop these functions within […]